ArticleBMJ open2023
Is a novel digital system for arm and hand rehabilitation suitable for stroke survivors? A qualitative process evaluation of OnTrack.
Article in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03944486 (Feasibility Study of On-Track - a Digital System for Upper Limb Rehabilitation After Stroke), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Feasibility Study of On-Track - a Digital System for Upper Limb Rehabilitation After Stroke
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Exploring the Influence of Digitalization on Multidisciplinary Poststroke Rehabilitation Practice: Qualitative Study.JMIR rehabilitation and assistive technologies · 2026Article
- UPBEAT Trial: a randomised feasibility evaluation of a digital system for UPper limB rEhabilitation After sTroke.Pilot and feasibility studies · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
OBJECTIVES AND
designNational guidelines emphasise the need to enhance arm and hand recovery poststroke. OnTrack is a 12-week package aiming to address this need. Feasibility was evaluated in a single-arm feasibility study (reported separately). This paper presents findings from a nested process evaluation. The objectives were to explore users' experiences of OnTrack and fidelity of delivery, in order to inform a definitive trial of effectiveness and future delivery.
settingParticipants were interviewed in a range of settings in hospital, home or via telephone, at the end of their intervention cycle. Session observations for a selection of coaching sessions were carried out in person at home or remotely, post-COVID-19.
participantsEleven participants who completed the intervention following a stroke were interviewed. Seven coaching sessions were observed.
interventionThis process evaluation was part of a larger feasibility study of OnTrack, which involves setting movement targets and monitoring activity using a tracker on the wrist, motivational messaging via a Smartphone and self-management coaching. Preliminary analysis of data collected was conducted with a public and patient involvement group formed of stroke survivors. This informed changes in intervention delivery.
resultsParticipants reported finding the OnTrack programme beneficial, with the coaching role seen as particularly important. Participants found activity tracking motivating, but some noted discrepancies between tracked movement and what they considered useful activity. Motivational messages were sometimes irritating. Most felt ready to sustain their own activity practice at the end of the programme.
conclusionsThis process evaluation supported initial theoretical assumptions that OnTrack would enable activity practice through the use of remote monitoring. There was a strong emphasis on the coaching role as a mechanism of impact supporting the technological intervention. These findings will inform the next stages of delivery in a definitive trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03944486.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.